We The People USA

Citizens Dedicated To Preserving Our Constitutional Republic

The Bundy Affair

The Battle Continues

 

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 16, 2014

 

Late yesterday early evening, I received a message and link to on on-line article about the events at the Bundy's Ranch.  I was asked if the article was accurate.  The article is at National Report and is titled "Multiple Militia Members Arrested at Bundy Ranch, Charged with Domestic Terrorism."  The article, though no time stamp, appears to have been posted yesterday (April 15) at about 3:00 PM PDT.  It has no byline.

I have been in contact with people who had been at the ranch, and I have spoken with Ryan Bundy, as my point of contact at the ranch.  Realizing that they have had their hands full, dealing with the events and after the events, I had minimized my contact with Ryan (a 45 minute interview on April 8, and a 5 minute conversation a few days ago), but this article warranted attention.

I called Ryan, yesterday evening, and asked if they were aware of any arrests.  He affirmed that there had been no arrests.  There is little doubt that had such arrests occurred, the Bundys surely would have received information to that effect.

So, why would someone want to publish an article that was such a blatant lie, and easily refutable?  Well, let's look at some aspects of the article, and then I will conclude with what appears to be the reason behind this article, and perhaps many more that are circulating on the Internet.

The article begins with this assertion, "The standoff in Nevada reached new heights this afternoon as armed federal agents began arresting militia members gathered to protest in support of Cliven Bundy."  Considering the time that it was published, early in the afternoon, it does raise suspicion.

Next, it claims:

In total, 16 protesters taking part in the rally are reportedly in custody and being held without bail on domestic terrorism charges, resisting arrest, creating a public nuisance, and trespassing.

Interestingly, they were charged with "domestic terrorism" and "creating a public nuisance".  The former, probably quite severe; the latter, usually treated with arrest and then release; a rather strange assortment of charges.

Then, for whatever reason, the following conclude that paragraph:

Early reports indicate that protesters were verbally and physically abused prior to being arrested.

I would suggest that this sentence is intended to garner sympathy from, and credibility to, the patriots, for reasons that will be addressed, later.

Now, the next paragraph gets even more interesting.  In a single sentence, a warning is put out to instill fear in any who attend the protests going on outside of the Bundy Ranch:

Federal agent Paul Horner, a 14-year veteran of the force, spoke with National Report by phone and had this to say: “Under direct orders from the FBI and the DOJ, on behalf of the BLM, we have infiltrated the crowd with armed undercover agents.  The agents are collecting intel and coordinating that information with drones that are also overseeing the disturbance.  In addition, we have positively identified approximately 85% of the crowd and are running background checks for previous violations, warrants, etc.  License plate numbers of protesters are being collected and entered into the national database as well.  These right-wing extremists pose a serious threat to the safety of the operation and we have orders to make arrests and confiscate firearms.”

Now, I don't like windmills, so I will not joust with one to see if Horner is real, though I doubt that he is.  However, within his statement, he "admits" infiltration by armed undercover agents, who we must suppose came out from their cover when they made the arrests.  Then, the subsequent threat of identification and inclusion in a "national database" sort of completes the effort of intimidation.

There is more to the article, however, what is above presented is sufficient for us to begin to look at, perhaps, is the purpose of this blatantly false article.

After the events of Sunday, where the BLM stood, stoically, for a few minutes, and then cowered away, in what appeared to be mortal fear, the government had lost the upper hand.  This was, without a doubt, a defeat of the worst kind for the government.  They had been publically humiliated, even in Mainstream Media, in having the will of the people asserted over their presumed authority.

If we look back at both our Revolutionary and Civil Wars, we know that when there is victory, enlistments increase and public support excels.  However, with defeat comes the opposite -- not to mention the psychological effect on the participants.

Embarrassment in conflict often has rather bizarre consequences.  For example, in Waco, on the first day, the BATF suffered defeat.  They were shown  with their tails between their leg, dragging wounded comrades away from the battlefield for medical treatment, with the grace of the Davidians, who were not afford such medical luxury.  Their humiliation resulted, eventually, in the childish destruction of the property of the Davidians, after the fateful fire of April 19.  This was the result of an arrogant attempt to restore the superiority of the government forces over an enemy, the Davidians.

It is the psychology of defeat, and the psychology of victory, that instills, in each side, a mental framework that is either destructive, or brings enthusiasm. 

This National Press article, and many other articles that detract from the truth of the events of the past week in Bunkersville, Nevada, appear to be an intentional Psychological Warfare (Psyop) operation by the government, their shills and supporters, to endeavor to reduce the moral effect of our victory, and enhance the believe of superiority in theirs.

Before I conclude this article, I want to bring to your attention a rather divisive tool implemented in the distraction of the article.  Many know that I have been in contact with the Bundys.  As I pointed out, above, I wanted to ascertain the veracity of the article.  Once the truth was known, I posted in the comments section.  There is no logging in required (strange) and I did check the box to receive notice of follow up comments, giving my email address, though I have, since, received none.

This morning, I received a message form a friend who had run across the article, and seeing the following comments, contacted me, saying that he believed it to be true, since the comment appeared to have been made by me:

Well, that would be about the time that I posted, though my last name, which I always use, was omitted.  So, what about the wording?  Well, what I wrote was, "This is BS.  I just spoke with the Bundys.  There have been no arrests."  (This is BS.  I just spoke with the Bundys.  There have been no arrests.)  Rather interesting, and extremely deceitful.

This is to deceive, intimidate, discredit, or otherwise attempt to use Psyop to change the nature of the game, and it is in full force.  For those interested in the mechanics of such subversive tactics, they are explained in Vortex.  Understand, however, that though the first battle has been won by the People, it is not over, and the nature of the game can be expected to change.

We must remain vigilante, and retain momentum, and not allow a denigration as a result of their tactics.  We have prevailed, and we will continue to prevail -- until Constitutional government is restored to our land.

 

This article can be found on line at The Bundy Affair - The Battle Continues

Views: 106

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Sounds like the original posting may have been a false flag to obfuscate the actual facts and discredit anyone who may have had real information. Gary you may have seen this video already, but I suggest you look at it and take notes so you can later verify what is being said https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFiosLqjoQQ  I am inclined to believe it. If it's a false flag whoever did it was an expert and that will even tell you something about what facts are still being hidden. This is not the first time the BLM has done this. See; These two articles

( http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/range-su13-hage-decisio... )

and

( http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62459?utm_source=CFP+M... )

To the first, an accurate assessment, though a bit confusing, There is no direct tie from Reid to the Bunkersville (Bundy) allotment.

To the second, Hage died before he ever got a penny. That was over ten years ago.

To the third, Judi McLeod To what Levin said, I wrote an earlier article that addressed "cow poop". However, to look at it in perspective, the tortoises and the cattle have been co-existing on the land for over a century. If the government claims were true, then there wouldn't be, after 100 years, any tortoises left. Judi had found a study on the desert tortoise that proves that cattle are really beneficial to the tortoise. They provide both food and necessary moisture, in their "cow poop".

The rest of what Levin talks about is consistent with what I have found, with the exception of the direct tie to solar farms. There is no record of that land being on the BLM solar power site listings.

Gary, check out the Nevada Open Range Laws on the books at; http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/ag/2010/fs1069.pdf

McFixit,

Thanks. I have reviewed both state and federal grazing and water right laws. What I see is a slow progress of asserted authority, though all seem to be "from this point forward", not retroactive. There are two parts of the federal lands that come into question. The first being the allotment, which was included in the endangered species designation. The second, land outside of the allotment, though the cattle were grazing there (trespass lands). The first removal was, apparently, over the endangered species, though I don't have a copy, yet. The second, the court made sure that the endangered species designation was not in consideration on the "trespass lands", and that decision was probably just.

The problem is, the grazing fees are supposed to be returned for grazing land improvements (I believe about 80% of the fees collected). Instead, when Bundy paid the fees, the government didn't return anything for improvements, which could have been used to fence the cattle out of the trespass lands.

The real problem is the government using incrementalism (slow, meticulous encroachment) that changes the intent, with the purpose of implementing the Agenda 21 concept -- move everybody off of the land and into the cities. There policy seems to be, we can do anything we want, so long as we have an excuse -- and, any excuse is good enough.

Gary, The laws all have to be from this point forward because of the Ex Post Facto caveat in the Constitution. You are absolutely correct about the increments and excuses the feds are using to implement agenda 21 protocols. I know that you agree with Publius about an article V convention but I do believe she also said there needs to be a repeal of some amendments. I think the 14th is the critical one because of how it's been constantly used to increase and expand Federal powers over the States. I can also see where the move to repeal the 16th is coming from, but I have yet to see what would replace it. All the suggestions about Fair Tax and Flat tax have inherent flaws, and so far no one has said it should be up to the people to decide on any future tax increases through a referendum vote. Maybe we could go back to the type of taxation protocols that were used before the 16th was ratified and have the States themselves collect taxes then send only what the wanted to to the Federal Government, and have a major say on how and what the Feds could spend them on. We also need to get the Senators back under State Legislature control if we want to get the original checks and balances put back into the three branches. I don't fear an Article V but the States need to do some pre planning on how to select delegates, what the delegates can and cannot do, procedure in place to immediately replace delegates that go against the wishes of the Legislature that sent them, protocols on what the delegates could agree on themselves and what they would have to refer to their State Legislatures for confirmation before agreeing to. All this can and must be enacted into state Laws before a convention can be called. I believe it is time for the people to take the reins again because every Amendment so far has been pushed on the people by the Congress alone, and every amendment that has passed has been to the benefit of congress and growing the Federal government.

I don't know what Publius Hulda's position is on a con-con. My feeling is, I don't care if we have one, or not. If we don't have one, nothing changes. we are still on the path to a means of restoration. If we have one, it can go either of two ways; it can propose amendments that 'correct' the Constitution, back toward what was intended by the Framers, or it can turn against us, proposing amendments that would undermine our rights and empower, even more, the government. If the former, then that would be good. If the latter, then that would mean that it is time to act.

I ran across an interesting survey, which I will upload, that shows what I believe to be a shift that should be encouraging for us, not that it would lead to armed revolution, as , often, a real threat of that nature can lead to reform. (See "Fairliegh Dickinson Univ gun control revolution.pdf" attached)

Regarding the 14th, I have written a frequently (among patriots, anyway) cited Essay on the 14th that will provide documented insight into how it was ratified, as well as the sequence of events that got us to where we are. The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution

The 16th is unnecessary. The was a 100 million (then dollars) surplus in the treasury when the 16th was ratified, which ratification is quite questionable ("The Law That Never Was, Vol. 1) by Bill Benson and Red Beckman). The 16th has become the means of forcing social change and favoritism. The Constitution provides for Excise, Impost and Duties. That is quite sufficient for the operation of government -- if they limit their spending to the operation of government. The state conventions, when ratifying the Constitution, in five instances that I can cite, were told that direct taxes would only be used in an emergency such as war. That war would have to be declared buy the Congress. However, we have paid foreign nations, foreign and domestic lazy people, without any consideration of repayment, to buy influence, favor, and votes. Those are not necessary for the operation of government. And, we have nearly done away with duties (most favored nation), which should be the primary source of revenue (according to Alexander Hamilton) as commerce is the primary beneficiary of our military forces, especially the Navy. Do, first, the need for the extravagant spending by government must be questioned and brought into control.

I will upload another file, "Federal Tax Burden by State 2005.xls", which is a spread sheet showing the redistribution of money, from fed to state, in 2005. You will note that some state get more than they contribute, while others get less, though you will also note that more goes back to the states than was brought in, and this doesn't count the cost of administration (IRS and other agencies that collect and distribute the money). So, what you will see is that we are taxed, the government takes the money and turns around and forces state and local compliance to administrative edicts, often contrary to the Constitution (I call this greenmail), and they do it with our own money. Consider, then, the previous paragraph. If more goes back to the states than is collected from within them, why tax them, in the first place?

Attachments:

Gary, I actually have other feelings on an Amendment convention and do not believe it can turn against us. Reason 1. all the delegates must agree on the specific language for a proposed amendment before it can be sent to congress and the States. Reason 2. It still takes 38 States to ratify an amendment just like the ones Congress proposes and it's one state one vote on the ratification.

McFixit,

You have more faith in aspiring politicians than I do. Unfortunately, the Constitution is silent on state ratification -- as to whether there must be a convention (as was true for the Constitution) or whether the state legislature can ratify. Subsequently, most amendments were ratified by legislatures.
That leads to consideration of "Some Thoughts on the Election Process "

Gary, I'll read that article, and I would like it if you would look at this set of model laws that should be enacted by every State before a convention;

http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2013&...  Indiana law describing the duties of a Delegate
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2013/SE/SE0224.1.html  "Duties of Delegates" Describing the Legal Restrictions the Legislature puts on them At the Convention
 
 


Senate Bill 0224

ARCHIVE (2013)
 
DIGEST OF SB 224 (Updated April 22, 2013 2:30 pm - DI 84)

Duties of Article V convention delegates. Describes the duties of delegates and alternate delegates to a convention called under Article V of the Constitution of the United States. Provides that a vote cast by a delegate or an alternate delegate that is outside the scope of the instructions given by the general assembly is void. Provides that a delegate or alternate delegate who votes or attempts to vote outside the scope of the instructions given by the general assembly forfeits the delegate's appointment by virtue of that vote or attempt to vote. Provides that the call by the general assembly for an Article V convention is withdrawn if all delegates and alternate delegates vote or attempt to vote outside the scope of the instructions given by the general assembly. Provides that a delegate or alternate delegate who knowingly or intentionally votes or attempts to vote outside the scope of the instructions commits a Class D felony. Establishes an advisory group to evaluate whether a delegate or an alternate delegate has acted outside the scope of instructions.
Current Status:
  Law Enacted
Latest Printing (PDF)

http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2013&...  Indiana law describing how delegates to Article V convention are selected
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2013/SE/SE0225.1.html  Selection of Delegates

Senate Bill 0225

ARCHIVE (2013)
 
DIGEST OF SB 225 (Updated April 22, 2013 2:31 pm - DI 84)

Appointment of delegates to Article V convention. Provides for the appointment of delegates and alternate delegates by the General Assembly to a convention called for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States called for by the states under Article V of the Constitution of the United States. Establishes the qualifications of delegates and alternate delegates.
Current Status:
  Law Enacted
Latest Printing (PDF)

Your latest doesn't have a reply button, so I will reply here.

Those are proposals in Indiana, they are not law. Each state will decide what form their participation will take,

The first, however, prohibits deviating from the Agenda. Will one amendment cure the ills that this country suffers under?

Perhaps, if the states did hold a convention, and that invention did allow additional amendment to be supported, it could lead either way. But, a single bandaid, and that bandaid applied to a single subject, though we have no idea whether it will be for, or against, what we, the patriots would want, does not lend well to what you have posted.

For example, if the convention were called to address the Second Amendment, would they go with Justice Stevens,m or would they expand our rights?

Actually Gary they have been enacted into law, I'll have to find the latest link that shows that and get it to you.

Regardless, my position remains unchanged. I trust you have finished the article.

RSS

Badge

Loading…

Online Magazines

Accuracy In Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
American Conservative
Amer Conservative Daily
The American Prospect
Atlanta Const Journal
The Atlantic Monthly
Boston Review
Blacklisted News
The Bulletin
Canada Free Press
Capitalism Magazine
Chronicles Magazine
City Journal
CNS News
CNIN Truth
Conservative Economist
Consortium News
Commentary Magazine
The Conservative Edge
Conservative Outpost
Corruption Chronicals (JW)
The Corzine Times
CounterPunch
The Daily Caller
Daily Mail UK
Deep Journal
Digital Journal
Dissent Magazine
The Economist
Examiner
Florida Pundit
Foreign Affairs
Foreign Policy
The Freemen Institute
The Gouverneur Times NY
The Guardian UK
The Foundry (Heritage)
Free Market News
FrontPage Magazine
Gateway Pundit
The Guardian UK
The Globalist
Harper's Magazine
Harvard Inter Review
The Hill
Human Events
In These Times
The Land of the Free
Liberty Unbound
Mission America
Mother Jones
Monthly Review
The Nation
National Interest
National Ledger
National Review
New Internationalist
The New American
The New Ledger
New Left Review
New Media Journal
News Hounds
Newstin
The New Republic
News Busters
News Fifty
NewsMax
Newsweek
News Daily
News With Views
Online Journal
Oohja.com
The Palestine Chronicle
Planet Daily
Policy Review
Poligazette
Politics Daily
The Post Chronicle
Pravda
The Progressive
Reality Check
The Real News Network
Reason
Real Clear Markets
Real Clear Politics
Red Pepper
Roll Call
Russia Today
Salon
Slate
Spectator Magazine
Spiked
Telegraph UK
Time
Toward Freedom
Townhall
U.S. News & World Report
Utne Reader
Wall Street Journal Magazine
Washington Examiner
The Washington Independent
Washington Monthly
The Weekly Standard
World Net Daily
World Magazine
World Press Review
World Reports
World Tribune
Vanity Fair

© 2024   Created by WTPUSA.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service